The following Dispute Resolution guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
When considering whether to grant a freezing injunction, the courts will need to ensure that certain requirements have been met. One of these is that there is a 'real risk' that a judgment obtained by the claimant will not be satisfied usually due to dissipation by the defendant of its assets or unjustified dealing with the defendant’s assets. This requirement is considered in this Practice Note.
For information on the other requirements, see Practice Note: Freezing injunctions—requirements.
If the court has found that there is a good and arguable case against the defendant, it will go on to consider whether there is a 'real risk' that a judgment obtained by the claimant will not be satisfied.
Generally, this risk will occur as a consequence of the defendant dissipating their assets (The Niedersachsen). However, it also covers other actions of the defendant which would raise the 'real risk' that any judgment will be rendered nugatory (Cherney v Neuman). In National Bank Trust v Yurov, the court used the language of a real risk of ‘unjustified dealing’ with the defendant’s assets, which encompasses not only dissipation but other ways in which assets may be put of reach of enforcement by a defendant’s actions (see, also, Fundo Soberano De Angola v Santos). For example,
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234